Are Electronic Monitoring Ankle Bracelets no longer considered reliable?

I was under the impression Electronic Ankle Bracelets were trusted and reliable for prisoners on home detention.

Is that no longer the case?

I'm puzzled because Dominique Strauss-Kahn bail has the following conditions.

Why all the extra stuff? Doesn't an ankle bracelet immediately notify the cops if a criminal leaves their home? I've heard they can set a certain distance. For example you might be allowed 50 feet from the house to take out the trash, get the mail etc. Or they can enforce a curfew. You must be back in your house by 6pm. etc.

If they are trusted by jails across the country then why not in this case?

Quote:

The arrangements to which Strauss-Kahn must abide are still very restrictive, however. He will be subjected to 24-hour monitoring by a security firm paid for by himself and an electronic tag will be fitted on his ankle.

Video cameras were to be installed in the house and alarms will be fitted on the doors to stop him leaving.

The charges against him are so bizarre and gross. He has resources world wide. Removing the ankle bracelet would not be much of a challenge with the right equipment. He has nothing to lose except his million dollars to gain freedom. Otherwise he could die in prison. He is super motivated. Add to that guards can't always be trusted. Hence the fear of the prosecutor is enhanced.

Assuming he might be guilty, I simply cannot identify with the act that he is accused of. How could he expect not to be charged? He could buy sex if he needed it that badly. People in high places don't seem to be any better at controlling their animal impulses than dogs. What if our president goes nuts and has a nuclear moment? This is why there always needs to be cross-checks on everything.

Ankle bracelets are certainly reliable in that if they will typically notify the authorities if you're trying to tamper with them, remove them (or successfully remove them) or if you leave your approved area.

However with regular people on home confinement the truth is they could be out the door and very difficult to locate before anyone is actually dispatched and arrives on location. Imagine DSK had someone bring a tool into his apartment that could shear off an ankle bracelet in an instant and then he immediately exited the building. He could be quickly driven by friends out of the city and could be secreted out of the country pretty quickly on any of a number of private planes, or even a private yacht or something (what's the law on him getting on a yacht and then making it to international waters? Would we have legal grounds to stop the boat and bring him back?)

Now, how likely DSK would be to do any of those things if just left on ankle bracelet monitoring, no one knows. Obviously we he is presumed innocent in a court of law and he might in fact be innocent. If so, he may care greatly about clearing his name, even at the risk of going to jail. Or even if he did the act he may feel confident in beating the charges against him and would prefer that to having to live the rest of his life essentially in shame with serious limitations on his movements (Roman Polanski for example has a list of countries he will typically not visit.)

In this case they decided to just take it a step further and make it very difficult for him to escape period.

There's a difference between EMP (electronic monitoring program) and GPS. The media, of course, often get them confused.

If he's on straight EMP he can just leave when he wants. In fact, he's better off leaving it on and just fleeing the moment his curfew ends in the morning. Cutting the band immediately sends an alert. When the base detects out of range, the monitoring company alerts the police. Kind of like a home security system. Once he's past curfew and the base alerts the monitors, cutting it off is redundant. As far as GPS, the sooner it's cut off the better. Though it means the cops will be after your ass in short order.

I imagine the manhunt would make it damn near impossible to flee the country. OTOH, how many faces do you really notice in a day. Hell, I could probably make it to Central America with a backpack and a few grand. Then you just make it to Venezuela, offer some secrets to Chavez, and sip mai tais till you die of old age.

Actually, it's about power and control. The sex is just the vehicle. Rape has nothing to do with sex.

Is there any evidence that this is true for most rapes? It sounds like a bunch of pop psychology. It sounds stupid to me to assert than rape has nothing to do with sex. Rape covers a lot of territory from some guy assaulting a random stranger on the street to the guy who won't take no for an answer at the end of the evening. I could be persuaded that the first might have a lot more to do with power and control than sex. But the case of the guy not taking no for an answer at the end of a night out is mostly about sex.

But what if she was dressed like a seductive GQ question? Does she not have the right to stay on topic about electronic monitoring bracelets and not be 'jacked into some dark corner debate? Or was this thread asking for it? Or is GQ never just about information, but always with an element of knowledge?

He could be quickly driven by friends out of the city and could be secreted out of the country pretty quickly on any of a number of private planes, or even a private yacht or something (what's the law on him getting on a yacht and then making it to international waters? Would we have legal grounds to stop the boat and bring him back?)

The nice thing about international waters is that there is no other jurisdiction to complain if you go there to arrest someone. The FBI arrested Fawaz Yunis aboard a yacht in the Mediterranean.

The only extras I see cited are video cameras and alarms that will go off in he leaves. Video cameras would obviously be useful to show how and why he he was leaving, and alarms would be a failsafe system to alert those nearby.

But it also might well just be journalistic bluff. I doubt they've been given insights into his security system - that'd kinda be countereffective.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Acsenray

Sigh.

Rape is not about needing sex. It's about needing to force someone to engage in sexual acts.

Going on the rest of his post, and maybe being charitable, I thought it was maybe 'if all he wanted was sex, he could have bought it, so this wasn't just about sex, if true.'

Actually, it's about power and control. The sex is just the vehicle. Rape has nothing to do with sex.

Actually, rape is a hugely complex act that has been hashed out over and over again in GD on this board alone, and in places all over the web. But the crux of the argument is that you can't say rape is 100% nothing to do with sex, any more than you can say rape is 100% nothing to do with power or control. One person's motivation for rape is not the same as someone else's, and what is covered by the title "rape" is a massive block of actions and motivations.

I think you nailed it. He is a special case because of the press attention world wide.

I guess if there's any conceivable way he could escape (a James Bond thing with a waiting Yacht in the harbor and guys with special cutters entering the apartment. A speeding car to the harbor might beat the police. But even then the yacht has to reach international waters before the police helicopters arrive & start shooting.) Maybe one in a thousand odds of success, but with this kind of scrutiny they want to cut any chances.

The case itself I'm trying not to get invested in. The judges and lawyers will do their thing. He'll get a tougher sentence because he is a big fish with international eyes watching.

So in general, ankle bracelets are secure? I've read news articles stating pedos, and other hardcore criminals are sometimes confined at home using them. I first heard about ankle bracelets when Robert Blake finally got bail (took over a year). IIRC He showed it during his Barbara Walters interview. He could walk out onto his property and sit. But no further without triggering the device.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duckster

Dominique Strauss-Kahn appears to be a special case.

He's filthy rich. Many world-wide connections. A definite flight risk, even though they took away his passport.

WAG - They are making him an example on a big time, super duper scale. There are also reports he is on suicide watch as well.

Latest update is he is remaining in jail. Seems his new neighbors didn't want him around.

The nice thing about international waters is that there is no other jurisdiction to complain if you go there to arrest someone. The FBI arrested Fawaz Yunis aboard a yacht in the Mediterranean.

That's a good point, I vaguely remember reading about that incident years ago.

However that seems the case of a person being lured out onto a yacht that was essentially controlled by the U.S. government, in essence they stepped into a trap.

Would the United States Coast Guard or some law enforcement agency have the legal right to stop a French-flagged vessel operating in international waters if they observed Dominique Strauss-Kahn board it after escaping from the States on a speed boat? (I don't necessarily think this is the most realistic scenario.)

Actually, rape is a hugely complex act that has been hashed out over and over again in GD on this board alone, and in places all over the web. But the crux of the argument is that you can't say rape is 100% nothing to do with sex, any more than you can say rape is 100% nothing to do with power or control. One person's motivation for rape is not the same as someone else's, and what is covered by the title "rape" is a massive block of actions and motivations.

What happens if he is found innocent? Will he be reimbursed for the private security expenses? Seems like he should be if the courts declare him innocent.

No. The primary purpose of bail agreements is to insure a person who is being released from official custody does not flee to avoid the criminal case pending against them. This means that unlike many other things in our legal system it is not "blind" to the status of an individual's financial affairs. In America if I'm Bill Gates my fine for speeding is going to be the same as anyone else. However, my bail is going to be dramatically different. A middle class person, $100,000 bail will mean they probably lose their house (which they would have put up as collateral) and doomed their families to poverty if they skip out--a very strong motivator to return. Someone like Dominique Strauss-Kahn whose reported worth is around $4m and whose wife's worth is many multiples of that could lose that kind of money and be perfectly fine with it.

Additionally the conditions of my bail will be very different from Dominique Strauss-Kahn's, I am not a jet setter with connections all over the world, I am not a citizen of another country, my risk and capacity to flee are simply far lower. So the court can decide on various conditions of bail that must be followed to adjust for those extra risks in DSK's personal circumstances. Bail remains an option and not mandatory, if DSK had said the conditions of the bail were too onerous for him, he has the option of remaining at Rikers at the expense of the people of New York.

Should DSK be refunded the costs of his super-expensive legal counsel as well, if acquitted? Should he additionally be compensated for lost earnings? Should he be able to sue the State of New York for punitive damages due to the harm it has caused his political career?

He could certainly try to sue the State for all those things, but he would lose since the State is following all the rules in prosecuting a criminal case. He has been indicted by a grand jury and was arrested based on probable cause, so his ability to recover anything he expends in defending himself from the charges is essentially none.